chasing time-barred tradelines

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by MrGreen, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    I mentioned on another thread but thought it proper to separate this out here; I have 5 negative, old tradelines I'd like to remove entirely. I've not worked on this end of things before, so I'm in research mode now.

    Three of them seem pretty straightforward; on my credit report they show date of last payment (DOLP) of 10/2005, 12/2005, and 1/2006. So the third one just hit 7 years, and I can get removal of it 6 months from now. The other two sooner.

    But there are two problem entries:

    4) - a tradeline showing a first major delinquency of 1/2007, with no DOLP shown. So this one just now hit the SOL (statute of limitations) and cannot be litigated. But still, I'm looking at seeing this item on my reports for another year and a half. Since its a relatively small dollar amount, I'm thinking that the pay for delete (PFD) option would be my best bet.

    5) - a tradeline whose data seems unusual:
    DOLP: 8/2006
    date of first delinquency: 1/2006
    first major deficiency: 8/2006

    So with #5 here, does the SOL begin on 1/2006, or 8/2006?

    Do my assumptions regarding these dates for all five sound like right SOL-thinking? Or do I need to study up some more? (I'm betting the latter.)
     
  2. mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    #5 Did you actually make a payment 8/06? If you did, SOL begins from it, and if your state has a 6yr SOL as I believe you alluded to above, this too would be time barred, but will probably report (unless you do something about it) till 2/14

    Remember, SOL and reporting time are different beasts. You're clear of SOL's all around, but I'd suggest validation letters first on the two CA accounts that could stick around for another year or so; being that old you could have a good shot at the ability to validate being stone cold.
     
  3. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    I sure don't think I paid them so much as a dime during 2006. But I cannot guarantee it. Since the difference is important, is there a way I can find out?

    I don't know, but my impression is that they don't have to prove that to me. Am I wrong? (crosses fingers)

    Thanks for the other feedback too; yes, it seems that for me the SOL is 6 yrs (to when it is not litigate able) and after 7.5 years it must drop off all reports. Both of these dates are starting at the date of last payment (or acknowledgement of the debt, which has never happened).

    Also, re: the PFD, I wonder if a PFD would be more easily accepted by them now, vs. later when my credit is (possibly very significantly) better. Seems like they'd drive a harder bargain later?
     
  4. mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    If you have/still can access bank records from then, that would be one way. FCRA section 605 (c) (1) is explicit as to the running of the reporting period. By re-aging the compliance date they're violating section 623 (a) (1) (A) Duty to provide accurate information. That account would fall off at least 8 months sooner by forcing them to comply.
    If you are pretty certain you never made a payment in '06 (and even if you're not) I would think you could still demand in writing that the OC produce evidence of payment subsequent to 1/06. I don't know of a way you can 'prove you didn't pay something during a certain period of time'.

    If the OC doesn't produce evidence and doesn't change the compliance date (back to 1/06), you could sue them for violating section 623 of the FCRA and let them prove to the judge that you 'really paid' in 8/06 (but considering how old this debt is and that they likely know they're past the SOL on collecting from you its doubtful that they'd even let it go that far and either change the compliance date, or just delete altogether.)

    As to the PFD on trade-line #4....1/07 is the date to go by as far as the reporting period (CRA's like to play games by using different terms for the compliance date). So you're 6 years into the 7.5 reporting time. I don't think having better credit down the road would have any bearing...in fact they would have no permissible purpose to pull your report to even know that since the debt is legally no longer collectable. PFD would be their only chance to see any money at this point.
     
  5. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    4. I would dispute "incorrect last payment date, in accordance with Johnson v. MBNA conclusive verification demanded."
     
  6. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    5. I would dispute all 3, again citing Johnson v. MBNA.
     
  7. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    Surprise, surprise, surprise

    I got some updated credit reports; it had been a year since I had. Complete Shock........

    My credit reports looked like they were someone elses. Virtually devoid of any negative entries; just one surprise entry dated 4 years ago, in collections, for a whopping total balance of 81 bucks. Every other entry is positive.

    Positive entries for:
    3 current credit cards
    3 sequential toyota new truck loads, with the last one paid off a year ago
    1 fully paid mortgage

    And with all positive entries stating "pays as agreed" or such.

    Just for fun I went back to a credit report from 2009, where I had 25 tradelines, most of them negative...

    I truly do wonder why the last half dozen negative tradelines disappeared. Was it because I beat them up kinda bad via a steady stream of letters, spaced out by the waiting periods for them to reply? Then the ones that didn't reply I slammed again.... and again....

    I'm just flabbergasted. If anyone has any questions about particulars, I'm game to share.

    In the mean time, did I mention my last new toyota loan was paid off a year ago? Time to go new truck shopping... ;-)
     
  8. Logan Abbott

    Logan Abbott Well-Known Member

    Nice! I'm sure the DV's had a lot to do w/ it - any chance there was a miscalculation on some of those SOL's?
     
  9. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    Thanks I'm pretty happy too. So far as those SOLs, no. When I typed that post in, I had my credit reports from one year ago in my hand where I looked each up and cited what they cited.

    I'm not familiar with a creditor that will not report negative info merely for their own convenience (i.e., to not have to continually put up with my pointed, specific/detailed, and time sensetive demands, but I can't help wondering now. What else is there?

    For the record, my letters were pretty relentless, never missing a deadline to send another, whether I had a response to respond to, or if they did not respond in the allotted time they got an even nastier one.

    Again, I'm doubting they were merely cowed by my letters, no matter how annoyingly costly they became to them. But what else is there?
     
  10. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    Real FICO scores now bought

    Darn it. I went and got all cavalier about that one little 81 dollar collections account (that I never received any bills to pay; it just went onto my credit report - argh!). I called them. Dumb Dumb Dumb.

    I've very lucky that even after I screwed things up royally between me and the CA today, that the OC is a local vendor that has provided me with professional services aplenty for the past 6 years. Since they're the ones that put the CA onto me without so much as asking me for money, my current plan is to put it on them to get it gone. I suspect some here would doubt that approach, but I think it will work. They value my ongoing business, and no matter how this charge came onto my credit reports it was them that went that route instead of just asking me for the money; I think they'll belly up to the bar and take care of this for me.

    On the brighter side, I went and paid money for real credit scores. myFICO.com provided me with an EQ FICO of 753 and TU FICO of 743.

    Experian.com gave me a 700 - probably because that's the only CRA reporting the dumb 81 dollar collection account.

    I'm doing my happy dance.
     
  11. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Calling doesn't always equal "screwing things up royally" there are times when I am bored that I love calling CAs.

    If you can keep them off of their script, and catch them off guard, it can be very fruitful.

    IMPORTANT: If you do have a phone conversation with a CA, it's important to memorialize the conversation, it doesn't have to be a verbatim transcript of the call, but it needs to capsulize the conversation, better to have it on the record in writing.
     
  12. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    Excellent points, all.

    But so far as screwing things up really well, just trust me on that. I should have mentioned that I screwed things up royally in addition to calling them verbally. ;-)

    I won't recount details, except to note that I went thru 4 separate people there at the CA, and as badly as the first person went the others continued to spiral downward... The first person made the mistake of getting all in my face about needing me to give her my SSN to look me up. Of course I said no way. Well, to be honest, I asked, in response: "Are you new?". Argh.

    About memorializing it, phone recorders are legal to use in most states, and very cheap. If I was going to make a habit of talking verbally with'm, I would record.
     
  13. nunna

    nunna Well-Known Member

    Could they pull a report under the premise they are assessing the ability to pay, for example, looking for available credit (on a credit card), store charge cards from an electronics store (indicating you may have high end electronics to pawn), mortgages (to promote getting a HELOC to pay them off) or they are merely looking for good contact information. They can pursue collection activity indefinitely unless you slap them with a C&D, but only a court-ordered remedy is limited by the SOL. CAs have a history of asking people to do ridiculous things to extract money from them, even if the SOL has expired. It seems logical that if the court system will not respect a debt neither should they, but the law simply is not worded that way.

    I am indeed playing the devil's advocate (but debt collectors are the ones who surely give us hell).
     
  14. mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    Jam had mentioned in another thread that a CA having the account does provide them with a permissible purpose.

    Speaking under that argument, I guess the CA could do it under that, meaning they've got the account, they've got a permissible purpose....however....knowing that the account is past the SOL and that they can't sue, wouldn't make sense for the CA to use the argument of pulling a report under the premise they are assessing the ability of the consumer to pay because they'll ultimately limited by the law.

    I'm interested in learning how to throw DC's off their script though....sounds like fun :)
     
  15. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Memorializing doesn't need to be recorded.

    A letter stating something to the effect of, written closely after the conversation, then sent to them works.

    Works as memorializing the conversation.
     
  16. Logan Abbott

    Logan Abbott Well-Known Member

    That's excellent. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you this, but just make sure to stay on the local vendor to get the account removed from your CRA. If it doesn't happen in a couple months I would take it up w/ the CA, since ultimately they're the ones who will have the final say when it comes to reporting.

    That said - congrats!
     
  17. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    Re: Surprise, surprise, surprise

    Good call Jason, that is exactly what I've been doing. It has now reached a new low, in the area of CAs:

    The OC (I get along great with, for 6 years now) told me they contacted the CA. The CA merely snowed them.

    OC tells CA that I never owed them money. Looking into it, OC and CA determine that the reporting date for the alleged collections (of a whopping 81 clams) was BEFORE the OC had ever hired the CA to be their CA! Yet the entry in my credit report made by the CA names the OC. An obviously false entry, of course.

    So the OC says its an error so delete it. And CA tells OC not to worry, because it DOES show paid and it will drop off my credit reports in 2017 anyway, so why worry?

    I informed OC as to why worry, and told them I would drive the hour to their offices today to check the status of this supposed collection tradeline's status.

    My bet: it'll be off my credit report before I get to the OC office, just 2 hours from now. Want to bet? I'm feeling good about this.

    No more calls to CA for me. That was my first, and last.
     
  18. Logan Abbott

    Logan Abbott Well-Known Member

    What's the word MrGreen? Did it drop off as anticipated?
     
  19. MrGreen

    MrGreen Well-Known Member

    Not yet; I just checked.

    At least two employees of the OC are looking into my request. Of those two, one is very motivated to remove and the other is motivated to spread this one negative entry to the other two CRAs!

    I find it interesting that there is not one single employee of the OC that knows for a fact that I owe this debt, or knows if I was ever billed even once for it.

    I had the office mgr cornered on this point, when she pointed to her company's own records as proof that I had been billed and did not pay. So I ask her to please explain how her records show that. So she explains: See up top here, your address? Yes. Our records show that the invoices that were not paid were mailed HERE (she points to my address). I looked at her and asked how she could possibly say that they invoiced me years ago at an address that I hadn't even moved into yet! (I'm just 2 years at this present address that she pointed to).

    If I had that in writing I'd have won this battle by now. But no, I saw fit to go in verbally. I still see this as a tactical error on my part.

    I have not given up.
     
  20. mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    I know Jam has mentioned it before, memorializing conversations, but I also know about 99.9% of DC's lie anyway, and it would turn into a he said/she said.

    I happen to live in a state where both parties need to consent to a call being recorded, but if you live in a single-side consent only state, maybe you could try your hand at getting her on the phone and 'reminding her of what you talked about prior' and get her to admit what she already saidto you in person. Oh, and record the call of course.

    Even though I'd like to, I'm not the type of person ready to deal with DC's on the phone...I might let it get personal too quick and say the wrong thing.
     

Share This Page